biomass
Joe
Larry
> I have an article posted on the following blog:http://www.farmfieldforest.org/
> Joe
Joe,
Edit your article. There seems to be a number of grammar and clarity
problems, IMO. Of course, I know (and can visualize) what you are
saying, but the people you are trying to influence, might not hear the
message clearly.
In CA, We have long had markets for "forest residue". The problem
today, beyond the carbon neutrality politics and regulations, is that
any biomass operation has an absolute drain area witch is almost never
well correlated by the consultants who do the feasibility analysis.
When you constantly lose loggers and conversion facilities, the drain
area for a particular woodland changes dramatically, and possibly
permanently. You simply can't afford to move shit too far before it
don't play. The whole operation has to pencil out at any given point
in time. As you say, subsidies are gone or going (too much red tape
anyways. It is a rare landowner who can make them work, IMO and
experience).
Out here of course, we just burn up millions of acres (with collateral
damage) as if the whole frigging landscape was nothing more than a
"dump" fire. Further screwing up the atmosphere and ecology. If you
have never been near a huge, multi-thousand acre fire explosion, you
can not imagine the amazing force and area affected! Industrial
forest land in the west is nearly always rehabbed and replanted. It
takes about 10 years to noticeably begin to green up and look like a
forest, however. Any Federal land you can kiss off. Other than some
poorly executed erosion control work, any fire becomes an ecological
experiment in long-term fire succession. State land varies from
place to place.
I can tell you for a fact, that there is always more wood out there
than anyone thinks, but getting that wood used, is a real PITA.
The real benefit of "crap forest residue utilization" is the
prevention of the huge releases of atmospheric contaminates form fire
compared to controlled releases from biomass operations. The idea
that what we burn is later recaptured from future growth, while
largely true, ain't going to ever recoup the diesel it takes to
convert the crap to something of value in the first place.
Larry
Lawrence Lake, RFP
Redding, CA
Larry
@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, LRL...@aol.com says...
> The real benefit of "crap forest residue utilization" is the
> prevention of the huge releases of atmospheric contaminates form fire
> compared to controlled releases from biomass operations. The idea
> that what we burn is later recaptured from future growth, while
> largely true, ain't going to ever recoup the diesel it takes to
> convert the crap to something of value in the first place.
This is true, but any fuel has development energy costs. Biofuels will never
provide more than 10% or 15% of US energy needs, but with hydro, solar, wind,
wave, nuclear, coal and oil, they can be a contributing (and renewable) part
of the puzzle.
Joe
possible, despite drawbacks to each of them so we can drastically reduce
importing energy which has severe strategic and financial costs far
outweighing the drawbacks of each of the renewables
here in New England, we're concluding that biomass for just electricity
isn't the way to go- but CHP and thermal is a good choice
Joe
"Larry" <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.285e955a1...@news.aioe.org...